A POLICY STATEMENT BY LYNDON LAROUCHE:

Space:
The Ultimate Money Frontier

A number of mass-media outlets have repeatedly
attempted, again, during 1996, as in 1988 and 1992, to
ridicule Lyndon LaRouche's 1985-1986 proposal of a
commitment to establishing a science-city colony on Mars
within a forty-year timetable. This year, he has been
challenged repeatedly by the question, "Are you still
committed to the colonization of Mars?" LaRouche's space
policy for 1996 remains essentially the same as presented
in his just-republished 1992 campaign book, The
LaRouche Program to Save the Nation [Chap. 11,
"Frontier in Space," pp. 88-100]. To satisfy curiosity,
we republish here, by permission, an EIR
newsweekly's Special Feature on Space policy, as prefaced
by EIR Contributing Editor LaRouche.

February 5, 1996

It was the fair mid-1970s estimate, that the U.S.
economy had received about 14 cents in benefits from each
penny which the U.S. Federal government had spent on the
U.S. Manned Moon Landing program.(Footnote
1) So much for those
hyperventilating, glassy-eyed, Mont Pelerin Society
fanatics, who chant endlessly, that we must get the
Federal government out of the U.S. economy.

The
following identifies summarily each of the five sets of
facts which any competent economist would have considered
as background, before rendering judgment on those issues
of space policy which are identified in Marsha Freeman's
report. First, the general dependency of all sustainable
profitability of a national economy upon energy-intensive,
capital-intensive modes of investment in scientific and
technological improvements of the per-capita productive
powers of labor. Second, the division of responsibility
between government and the private sector in providing
this investment. Third, why the government's investment in
military and aerospace technology has proven itself to be
such a big winner in the fight to increase the real
national income of the U.S.A. Fourth, how the proposed
Mars-colonization proposals of 1985-1986 came about, and
how they will benefit the U.S. economy. Fifth, how space
science works to this effect.

1. The American
System of political-economy

The "American System of political-economy," as that
term was defined by President George Washington's Treasury
Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, was imposed, implicitly, as
an integral feature of the U.S. Constitution's
Preamble
and Article I. At that time, 1787-1789, it
was conceived,
and received, as a remedy for the nearly fatal economic
sickness of "free trade," with which the nation had been
infected through the compromises embedded within the
Articles of Confederation and in the 1782-1783 treaties
with the United States' mortal adversary, then and now,
the British monarchy.

It was the understandable zeal for peace with both
Britain, and also with Britain's U.S. admirers, which had
brought about the nearly fatal corruption pervading the
1783-1789 U.S.A. The compromise with Britain had been
effected, first, during 1782, with Prime Minister William
Fitzmaurice Petty and his creature, British Foreign
Service head Jeremy Bentham.(Footnote 2) The 1763-1783 stay-behinds are found among
both the strata of wealthy slave-owners, which later
formed the oligarchy of Britain's American puppet-state,
the 1861-1865 Confederacy, and New England and Quaker
Tories. The Tories of North Atlantic states were typified
by the treasonous, leading U.S. agent of Jeremy Bentham's
British foreign-intelligence service, Aaron Burr: those
families which profitted from the slave-trade, from the
British opium trade, and as London-loving textile
manufacturers working in partnership with the purveyors of
slave-produced cotton.(Footnote 3)

Protective Federal regulation of foreign and interstate
commerce, a Federal government monopoly respecting the
issuance and regulation of legal tender, a centralized
common defense under Federal authority, the promotion of
public works of infrastructure, and the fostering of
scientific and technological progress in infrastructure,
agriculture, and manufacturing, were leading
considerations motivating, and reflected in the 1787-1789
Constitution.

This "American System," rooted in the economic and
monetary successes of the pre-1689 Massachusetts Bay
Colony, is the economic design famously associated with
such names as Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, the
Careys, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Friedrich List, E.
Peshine Smith, and Abraham Lincoln's pre-Teddy Roosevelt
Republican Party, and has proven itself the most
successful model of economy which has been seen in any
part of the world during the recent three centuries.

The United States, in particular, never had an economic
depression, or kindred experience, during any part of the
1793-1995 interval, since Washington's first
administration, which depression was not the result of
deviating from the U.S. Federal Constitution, into the
follies of both "free trade" and kindred British
corruptions of our national monetary, banking, and
economic policies.

The Mont Pelerin Society quack-remedies peddled lately
by fellows such as Senator Phil Gramm and Speaker Newt
Gingrich, are not the cure; they are the disease, like the
corrupting influence of famous American tories such as
Albert Gallatin, or Andrew Jackson, Wall Street banker
Martin van Buren, Franklin Pierce, treasonous President
Buchanan, British spies Judah Benjamin and August Belmont,
and, after Lincoln's murder, Andrew Johnson, Teddy
Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Calvin Coolidge. Since
1763--and even earlier--there have been only two parties
of principle in the United States, crossing all other
nominal political-party lines: the patriotic party of
Cotton Mather, Benjamin Franklin, Washington, Lincoln, and
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, versus that tory
tradition of Aaron Burr, the Massachusetts Lowells, and
Benedict Arnold, which Americans in the Winston
Churchill-loving tradition, such as Henry Kissinger,
George Bush, Phil Gramm, Newt Gingrich, and the rabid
"free trade" Democrats, typify today.

As documented in other locations, the characteristic of
differences in way of thinking, which divides the patriots
from the American tories, still today, is that the
governing principles of the tories, are typified by the
empiricist world-outlook specific the kind of philosophical
liberalism (and, also, fascism) associated with Thomas
Hobbes and John Locke.(Footnote 4) That point is underscored by the contrast
between preambles of the respective constitutions of the
U.S.A. and the pro-slavery Confederacy. The tories are
followers of Locke; whereas, the ideas of the U.S.A.'s
patriotic founders were shaped by the explicitly
anti-Locke influence of Gottfried Leibniz in physical
science, in philosophy, in political morality, and in
principles of political economy. Treasury Secretary
Hamilton's famous, December 1791 Report to the U.S.
Congress on the Subject of Manufactures, illustrates
the governing influence of Leibniz's economic science upon
the American System of political-economy.

Putting to one side the expenditure for administrative
and regulatory functions of the Federal government: Under
the American System of political-economy, the dividing
line between government's role in the economy, and that of
the private entrepreneur, is essentially threefold: the
government is responsible for the economy of national
defense, the maintenance and development of basic economic
infrastructure, and the promotion of progress and
investment in advances in science and technology. In each
case, the responsibility undertaken by, and assigned to
government addresses a primary need of the economy which
the sum-total of private entrepreneurs could not fulfill
competently without government's own special and natural
role in the economy of any civilized modern nation.

The responsibilities of government for infrastructure,
include, presently, national and regional water management
and related programs of general sanitation, public
transportation, the organization of large-scale power
grids, and general urban infrastructure. This also
includes governmental responsibility, at the variously
appropriate levels of national, state, and local
government, for a quality of universal education essential
to the development of a qualified citizenry, and for the
fostering of generalized increase of the productive powers
of labor through investment in scientific and
technological progress. It requires governmental
responsibility, similarly, for ensuring the existence of
adequate health-care delivery systems to all of the
citizenry. It includes programs of scientific and
technological progress which must be undertaken on a scale
beyond the reasonable scope of the private entrepreneurs,
as the Manhattan Project, the post-Sputnik program of
National Science Foundation educational grants, and the
Manned Moon-Landing program of the 1960s, typify this
distinction.

2. The Lesson of the Soviet Union
as an Infrastructure Desert

Go back to the second half of the 1960s. Compare three
sets of national economies: A) The leading industrialized
nations, typified by Japan, West Germany, and the United
States; B) The Soviet bloc of nations (Eastern Europe and
the Soviet Union); C) China and India as typical of
greatly underdeveloped nations. Use maps of
infrastructural features (rails, highways, inland
waterways, and power grids) as aids in comparing the
conditions in Japan and in Europe to the West of Berlin,
with the development of infrastructure in continental
Eurasia to the east and southwest of Berlin. Recognize,
that during the second half of the 1960s, the general
level of technology of production employed, and
productivity, in Japan, the Federal Republic of Germany,
and the U.S.A. were nearly equal, but that those three
economies differed greatly in their respective
population-densities per square kilometer of usable
land-area. The characteristic of the three latter,
developed economies, is the approximate functional
correlation between population-density and density of
infrastructure development.

By contrast with those three developed economies, the
Soviet Union fell far short of being competitive, by
virtue of lack of adequate development of basic economic
infrastructure. On the same premise, China and India were
economic disasters.

The principle involved, is, summarily, as follows.

The most characteristic distinction, which sets the
human race absolutely apart from, and above all other
forms of life, is the quality of cognition: the
ability of the individual human mind to create valid,
revolutionary changes in axiomatic principles of human
control over nature, by means of which the potential
relative population-density of society is increased.
This gain is reflected not only in an increase of the size
and density of the human population, but also rises in
individual life-expectancy, lowering of rates of
sicknesses by age-interval group, and increases in both
the "market basket" of household consumption and in the
per-capita production of the contents of those household
market-baskets.

Until the late Eighteenth Century, the overwhelming
majority of the populations of sundry cultures was rural.
At the time of the first census of the U.S. population,
for example, more than 90% were still rural. The
technological development of farming, foresty, and mining,
was the foundation of mankind's production of the physical
preconditions of existence. In the history of the early
colonies in North America, and the young United States,
the transformation of a relatively unfruitful wilderness
into fertile, developed farmlands, was the foundation of
progress in the human condition. Hamilton's 1791 On
The Subject of Manufactures provides a prophetic,
rather detailed description of the process by means of
which the United States was to be developed into the
world's leading agro-industrial power.(Footnote 5) It was the
fostering of manufactures, made feasible through such
means as development of roads and canals, which made
feasible the interdependent increase in the productivity
of agriculture and urban industry, as Hamilton describes
this process. This development of infrastructure, is to be
regarded as a development of the economic fertility of the
entire inhabited land-area of the nation, comparable to
the measures by which a fertile farm is hacked out of an
infertile wilderness.

Hence, the relatively desert-like quality of
infrastructural underdevelopment, and corresponding
economic infertility, of most of the habitable territory
of the former Soviet Union.

During the Nineteenth Century, the repertoire of basic
economic infrastructure required, was expanded, to include
railways, steam power, and so on. In the history of our
Federal republic, infrastructure was supplied, chiefly, as
either an economic activity of government, or through the
instrumentality of privately owned, but
government-regulated public utilities. This included not
only tangible forms of infrastructure, but also the
leading role of government in providing the means for
universal education, health-care systems, and the
fostering of science and technology.

Relatively speaking, an ironical failure of the Soviet
economy, is that it lacked that "socialist" institution
most successfully developed in capitalist western
continental Europe, Japan, and the U.S.A.: publicly
provided basic economic infrastructure, the indispensable
development of the potential economic fertility of the
land-area of the nation. Similarly, the most conspicuous
economic challenge facing nations such as China and India
is, similarly, the development of a basic economic
infrastructure adequate to foster urgently wanted
increases in the potential productive powers of the
nation's labor-force.

3. Military Spending and Space Exploration as
Infrastructure

In modern warfare, the per-capita effectiveness of the
individual soldier depends upon the technology and related
logistical support with which he and his unit are
equipped.(Footnote 6)

In the history of the United States, the premises of
military achievement were the fostering of technological
progress within the Federal arsenal system, combined with
the civil engineering programs, copying those features of
Gaspard Monge's 1794-1814 Ecole Polytechnique in
France, at West Point and Annapolis. Under Presidents
James Monroe and John Quincy Adams, the model for
scientific development of the U.S. military capabilities
was the military science-driver programs developed in
France, by Monge and Lazare Carnot, during 1793-1814.
Later, as post-1814 France's quality degenerated under the
influence of Laplace, Cauchy, and the positivists, the
U.S. national security apparatus, centered around Benjamin
Franklin's great-grandson, Alexander Dallas Bache, turned
to the Germany of Alexander von Humboldt and Carl F. Gauss
for the shaping of U.S. scientific progress and related
military programs.(Footnote 7)

It should be noted, that Lazare Carnot assumed command
of the military defense of France at a time when the
British agents in Paris, Robespierre's Jacobins, were
satisfied that the invading armies would soon effect the
dismemberment of France.(Footnote 8) Carnot, already established as a genius in
military science, and also a ranking scientist, assembled
his friends of the Monge circle to effect a technological
revolution in warfare, as part of his rebuilding the
French military forces under his command. The deployment
of newly designed mobile field artillery, and its use for
massed artillery fire, was among the measures which
revolutionized warfare. Under the Lazare Carnot who came
to be celebrated as the "Author of Victory," French
forces went, during months, from effective defense to
appearing as the virtually irresistable military force of
the continent of Europe, creating the great instrument so
famously misused by the picaresque Napoleon Bonaparte.
The intertwined efforts of the two collaborators, Carnot
and the Ecole Polytechnique's Monge, established the model
for what later efforts, such as the Manhattan Project and
the German-American space-program, identify as
science-driver forms of "crash programs."

Although we might trace the origins of the modern
science-driver "crash program" to the Platonists
Archimedes and Leonardo da Vinci, the conception of such
programs is traced directly to Gottfried Leibniz's
specifications for a science of physical economy, as
developed through the work of such explicitly anti-Newton
followers of Leibniz as the French 1793-1814 science
community associated with Carnot and Monge.

During the Twentieth Century, most of the technological
progress which has occurred, would not have occurred but
for the impetus supplied by perceived military-strategic
imperatives. Although space exploration lies as much
outside the domain of military expenditure as within, the
mid-1950s "moth-balling" of a Huntsville capability for
putting a satellite into orbit, typifies the ugly reality
of our Hobbesian age. Had the Eisenhower administration
been able to reach an "off" button, to stop the nagging
beep of the Soviet Sputnik, put into orbit on October 4,
1957, the U.S. space program would have been virtually
choked to death by Arthur Burns' monetarist mothballs
before the 1960s arrived.

For related reasons, the machine-tool activity centered
in the arsenals has been the principal motor-force of
modern investment in scientific and technological
advances, in both improved qualities of products and
increased productive powers of labor. Thus, although
military products are essentially economic waste,
throughout modern history, the greatest progress in the
national income of nations has been won through that
proliferation of new technologies which has occurred as a
by-product of military investments in science and
technology. As the Chase Econometrics study implies,
government investment in space exploration has been the
outstanding profit-producer for the taxpayer.

4. The 1985-1986 Mars-Colonization Program

My widely debated, 1985-1986 proposal for a 40-year
mission orientation for planting a science colony on Mars,
was prompted by Helga Zepp LaRouche's reaction to the
December 1984 death of a dear friend and outstanding
space-scientist, Dr. Krafft Ehricke. She assigned me to
prepare a paper for delivery to an international
scientific conference, convened in memory of Krafft, at
Reston, Virginia, June 15-16, 1985.(Footnote
9) Out of discussions of my
presentation during that conference, I was prompted to
produce the proposal which I presented for publication
about six months later, at the beginning of 1986. That
proposal attracted much wider recognition, and a
still-raging controversy, when it was presented in the
form of a half-hour Presidential-campaign television
broadcast, "The Woman on Mars," during 1988.

The manner in which this came about typifies the
general rule in modern science. It is an account which
need be told, if one is to understand the policy-framework
within which U.S. space-policy is situated today.

True to the Twentieth Century intertwining of military
procurement and space science, my association with
space-science, and my approach to space exploration had
developed as a result of my contribution to what President
Ronald Reagan named the "Strategic Defense Initiative"
(SDI). I had first published that SDI design during August
1979, as a document of my 1980 campaign for the Democratic
Party's Presidential nomination. That was brought into the
Reagan administration through my 1982-1983 work, on behalf
of certain Reagan administration agencies, in exploratory,
back-channel discussions with the Soviet government.

One must glance back, to events few years earlier, to
understand how this came about.

My own work in this direction had begun during
1975-1976. It started when I encountered a leaked report
in the Hamburg newsweekly, Der Spiegel, on a
pending NATO desk-operation of the Hilex series. This
strange Spiegel report drew my attention to a
piece of insanity which, I soon came to discover, was
officially denoted as proposed NATO doctrine MC-14/4.
These facts prompted my conviction that the developments
in solid-fuel boosters and precision of targetting,
combined with the urge toward forward-basing, were
bringing us toward the threshhold of potential
first-strike nuclear warfare. When heads of superpowers
are faced with the detection of a clutch of missiles a few
minutes from one's territory, and the prospect that those
few missiles might be capable of "pinning down" one's
ability to kick back, the world were at the brink of a
"first nuclear strike" potential. Without an
effective strategic ballistic-missile defense,
"first strike" would cease to be an unlikely strategic
option.

The next step toward the idea which was to become known
as SDI, was some 1977 discussions, held on my behalf, with
the then recently retired, former head of Air Force
intelligence, Maj.-Gen. George Keegan. Keegan suggested
that scientists associated with me assess the evidence
that the Soviet Union had the capability of developing a
deployable, ground-based, ballistic missile defense based
upon what the 1972 ABM-treaty suffixes identify as "new
physical principles." Keegan's concerns parallelled my
own, in opposition to the regrettably stubborn,
anti-scientist prejudices of former DIA head and (1980s)
Heritage Foundation associate Daniel P. Graham.(Footnote 10)

My standpoint was different than many among the U.S.
strategists who came to agree with the SDI simply as a
sane choice of military technology. Winston Churchill's
Britain had been all too successful in exploiting--early
and often--the premature death of Churchill's deadly
political opponent, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Churchill's
London had lured Washington and Moscow into that
geopolitical balance-of-superpowers game, by means of
which the tattered and smelly remains of the old British
Empire could play off Moscow and Washington to London's
profit, using the super-power conflict as a means of
subordinating the sovreignty of every nation on this
planet, to London's manipulating the relations between the
two superpowers.

Unfortunately, by the late 1970s, very few among the
relevant professionals, barring a relative handful of
exceptions in Europe, recognized the significance of the
fundamental strategic conflict between Roosevelt and
Churchill. They did not comprehend the fundamental
strategic significance of such follies of Averell
Harriman's and Winston Churchill's Harry Truman, as
Truman's firing and fraudulent defamation of General
Douglas MacArthur, an action which brought to an end the
United States' true sovreignty as a nation-state, and
ushered in those immoral forms of "cabinet" warfare
pioneered in post-MacArthur Korea, and applied with a
vengeance in 1960s Southeast Asia. So, by the late 1970s
and early 1980s, only a dwindling handful among our
military understood what was evil in Robert S. McNamara's
and Henry Kissinger's pushing the Russell-Szilard, Pugwash
dogmas of "detente."

My starting-point, was to view the mutuality of the
danger posed by trends of both powers toward forward
basing, as a premise for bringing about a strategically
indispensable, axiomatic change in global economic policy.
Since effective forms of strategic ballistic
missile defense could not be accomplished by any means
less advanced than "new physical principles,"
U.S.-Soviet agreement to cooperation in developing such a
strategic missile defense, could, in my estimate, not
merely bring the immediate military problem increasingly
under control, but would represent an international
science-driver effort, which would accelerate the
productive powers of labor throughout the planet, through
the "spill overs" of military technology into the
civilian economies of the world as a whole.

It was on that point that Dr. Edward Teller's 1982
references to use of these technologies to advance
"common aims of mankind," and the offer of technological
cooperation featured in President Reagan's March 23, 1983
announcement, coincided precisely with my views on the
proper design of the proposed agreement between the
superpowers.

These global economic implications of effective
strategic defense, were the point of departure for my
1985-1986 development of the Mars-colonization proposal.
My views on the military and political-economic impact of
"new physical principles" approaches to strategic
defense, were, and are central axioms of my
Mars-colonization program.

The crucial strategic incompetence which General Graham
and his factional allies would never overcome, was their
inability to recognize that it is economically impossible
to achieve assured preponderance of the strategic defense
by use of "kinetic energy" means, within the domain of
dense flotillas of rocket-launched nuclear warheads. One
must change the geometry of that domain, the aerial
battlefield, a change in the physical geometry of the
problem, which only "new physical principles" could
accomplish. In the political-strategic domain, the same
principle prevailed: peace could be achieved only through
either the defeat, or collapse of one of the superpowers,
or through a radical change in the political-economic
geometry of the planet. The same "new physical
principles," properly applied in a coordinated way, would
accomplish the optimal result in both respects.

That is the quality of scientific and strategic
thinking which is indispensable for competent formulation
of space policy.

During 1982, my exploratory back-channel discussions
with Moscow representatives, were parallelled by my
briefings to relevant scientific and military institutions
of other nations, including France, Germany, Italy, India,
and Japan, on the type of policy which I was proposing (of
course, without referencing my back-channel discussions
with Moscow). Numerous among these professionals had
significant backgrounds in space science and related
fields. A wide assortment of valuable collaborators was
brought together in this fashion. This activity overlapped
the significant scientific competencies of the Fusion
Energy Foundation, of which I have been a co-founder, and
with which I was actively involved throughout the period.
Out of this aspect of the work on what became known as
SDI, came the foundations for the 1985-1986 design of the
Mars-colonization program.

My 1985-1986 Mars-colonization policy was developed and
promulgated to prompt the U.S.A., as then still the
leading nation of this planet, to use its leadership
position to launch a global economic-recovery program
whose design was based upon the lessons of the marvelous
economic success of the 1960s Manned Moon Landing "crash
program."

The need for such a program was great, even within the
United States itself. By the close of the 1970s, the
United States had lost critical, large chunks of that
technology, which we had had during the 1960s, which had
been indispensable for the 1969 success of the Apollo
program. Today, during the past thirty years, the
per-capita physical value of the United States'
economy has been shrinking at an average rate of more than
2 percent per year.(Footnote 11) Around the world, moving from nation to
nation, one of the most consistent pictures of the past
thirty years' economic history, is the vanishing of
entire, vital sectors of technology and of those types of
labor skills which would be indispensable in any effort at
an actual economic recovery. In short, contrary to the
prophecies of such loonies as Britain's Lord William
Rees-Mogg, and his American proteges Alvin Toffler and
Newt Gingrich, the human body can not live on a diet of
software.

The need for such a Mars colonization policy is much
greater today, than during the mid-1980s. Without a very
large-scale, government-based, global "crash program"
form of science-driver spur to global investment in
advanced technologies, it will be virtually impossible to
effect an early general recovery of this planet's ruined
economies. The revival of lost machine-tool and
labor-skills resources, the stimulus to reviving
educational systems from their presently technologically
and culturally moribund condition, require, on an expanded
scale, the kind of stimulus which was provided by the
crash aerospace program of the mid-1960s.

5. The Economic Principles of Space Science

It is not sufficient to rely only upon the practical
politics of the attention-getting fact, that there was a
fairly estimated 14 cents return to the U.S. economy for
each penny spent on the U.S. government's Kennedy space
program. Just as a physician must prescribe no medication
whose efficient principle is not known scientifically,
costly governmental investments should not be risked on
the opinions of political pragmatists. Since the relevant
principles are presented in a significant number of
published writings on my original discoveries in the
science of physical economy, a summary suffices here.

The formal solution to the relevant, central problem of
measurement in economic science, is set forth implicitly
in Professor Bernhard Riemann's widely circulated, but
rarely understood habilitation dissertation of 1854.(Footnote 12) To reduce any
validated experimental discovery of physical principle to
the appropriate form, that principle must modify the
relevant set of axiomatic assumptions underlying the
mathematical physics existing prior to that discovery. The
result of such a modification of such a set of axioms, is
what Plato, and scientists after him, Riemann included,
identify by the term hypothesis. The formal
product of applying any such hypothesis to a system of
formal logic, such as a deductive mathematics, is an
open-ended set of mutually consistent propositions, called
theorems, constituting what is known as a
theorem-lattice.

The relevant problem of hypothesis, which is central to
economic science: Any change in the set of axioms
underlying a theorem-lattice, produces a new
theorem-lattice, none of whose theorems is consistent with
any theorem of the previous lattice. Nonetheless, in every
case of a valid discovery of principle, the result of the
change in mathematical physics is measurable in some
way, but not formally deducible from the standpoint
of the old mathematics. What may be measured to such
effect, is either a magnitude of extension, or, in the
alternative, the clearly defined existence of the kind of
mathematical discontinuity which marks the presence of
what we term a singularity. In consequence of the
preceding work of Carl F. Gauss, Riemann classified the
general idea of those changes in yardsticks, brought about
through valid experimental discoveries of physical
principle, as curvature of physical space-time.
The term "curvature" is employed there in the same
sense, that consistent errors in measurement of the
shadows of sundials led to Eratosthenes' fair estimate of
the curvature of the Earth's surface, about twenty-three
centuries past.(Footnote 13)

The relevance of Riemann's treatment of the metrical
problem of hypothesis to economic science, is located in
the essential distinction which sets man as absolutely
superior to, and apart from all other forms of life. Man
is the only species which can willfully increase its
potential relative population-density, to such an effect
that no principle of animal ecology can be applied
competently to the study of human populations. We increase
our species' potential relative population-density through
that developable agency of the individual human intellect,
which we recognize in such forms of expression as
validated discovery of a new, higher principle of nature
(i.e., the generation of a new hypothesis). The increase
of potential relative population-density, is the yardstick
used to measure those changes in the "curvature" of
physical-economic space-time resulting from such efficient
kinds of discoveries withn the domains of art and science.

We assimilate the individual such discoveries of other
persons, by reenacting the original discoverer's mental
experience of making that discovery, within our own minds.
These mental processes, by which individuals make, or
reenact original, valid discoveries in art and science,
are recognizable by the term cognition. The term
cognition, so defined in practice, is equivalent to the
alternative term creative reason, creative reason
as distinct from the qualitatively inferior mental
activity of mere logic. The understanding which we acquire
through those processes of cognition, constitutes that
which deserves, uniquely, the term knowledge, as
distinct from either sense-perception, mere deduction, or
mere opinion. In other words, knowledge is limited to our
accumulation of that body of valid original discoveries
which we have made our own through either original
discovery, or by reenacting the mental experience of
original discovery.

This accumulation of knowledge is of the Riemann form
of a series in which each given level of discoveries of
principle, up to some point, designated by n, is
superseded by an additional such discovery, designatable
as the (n+1)'th discovery (dimension). The series
of many hypotheses which is generalized by the symbology
(n+1)/n, is a series whose transfinite quality is
what Plato designates by the term higher
hypothesis, or Becoming.

The validity of that series, as demonstrable by
measurement according to the principle of curvature, is
the demonstration that the universe is so designed, that
nature is obliged to obey those individual powers of
cognition which produce, or act upon the directing premise
of valid discoveries of higher principle. This is usefully
restated: The human species' manifest ability to increase
its potential relative population-density practically,
through successive breakthroughs in scientific and related
knowledge, demonstrates, experimentally, that the
universe is so designed, that its laws are expressed in
the form of generalized human cognition, human creative
reason, of cognition in the form of higher hypothesis.

From those considerations, we derive the following
framework governing the principles of space science.

In the universe we encounter three distinct qualities
of processes. Proceeding from lower to higher, these three
are: those processes we deem non-living, those we
recognize as living, and the processes of cognition. None
of the characteristics of the higher processes can be
derived in a formal way from the characteristics of the
lower processes. Among these three, what Leibniz
identified as the notion of universal characteristics, are
adumbrated for all three domains by the principles of
cognitive processes.

The limitations of our senses also apportion the
universe in which these three qualities of processes
interact, among three domains: microphysics, astrophysics,
and macrophysics, the latter corresponding to processes
which can be examined directly on the scale of the senses.
Also, there is an order in the succession of relatively
valid new hypotheses, an order fairly identified by the
notion of an ordering of "necessary predecessors" and
"necessary successors," in the sequence of valid
discoveries of principle in art and science.

From applying these considerations of economic science
to exemplary experience with fruitful "crash programs"
from the past, the general notion of a successful design
for a structurable "science driver" form of new "crash
program" may be derived. The work of Gaspard Monge's
Ecole Polytechnique, the Manhattan Project, and the
Kennedy space program, are prominent among the convenient
examples.

Firstly, the subsuming objective of any science-driver
"crash program," must be to increase mankind's power,
per-capita, over the universe. This objective inheres in
the principles of such a program, as summarily identified,
immediately above. Thus, axiomatically, any such space
program will produce immediate benefits for mankind on
Earth.

Secondly, the immediate objective of such a "crash
program" is not one or several valid discoveries of
principle, but an entire family of such discoveries. This
means, that one has chosen as a central target for such
discovery an issue which A) is within the reach of
constructable experimental measurements, B) involves each
and all of the six phases of nature identified above,(Footnote 14) C) brings
together a wide array of discoveries which must be
resolved as the necessary predecessors for the centrally
targetted discovery of the project as a whole, D)
identifies a direction for later, further central objects
of discovery, which are made reachable through realizing
the initial centrally targetted discovery.

The primary objective of the 1985-1986
Mars-Colonization project, was, and still is a broad-based
family of fundamental and successive scientific
breakthroughs which will revolutionize the practice of
science and technology on Earth.

The highlights of the program are as follows:

The immediate target, to be reached within an estimated
40 years lapsed time, is the establishment of a permanent
"science city" colony on Mars, serving space research as
the science city of Los Alamos served the Manhattan
Project: a base of operations as far distant from the
noisy Sun as is reasonable within such a time-span. This
"science city" on Mars is to provide a forward base of
operations for very-large-aperture arrays and related
research tools, for the intensive study of every
designated crucial variety of physical anomaly in space
which might be accessed by apparatus set into space near
Mars orbit.

The preliminary steps to be completed as prerequisites
for establishing a permanent base on Mars, are: 1)
Establishing a family of Earth-orbitting space-stations;
2) Achieving radical economies in bringing weight to
space-station orbit, through replacement of direct
ground-to-orbit rocket, by an approach modelled upon the
Sänger project;(Footnote 15) 3) Establishing "automated industrial"
activities on the Moon, as envisaged for the U.S.A. by
such veterans of Hermann Oberth's original Moon-landing
program as Krafft Ehricke; 4) The fabrication of the heavy
components of interplanetary vehicles and of Helium-3 fuel
components in industrial facilities on the Moon; 5) The
establishment of occasional and then regular flights of
flotillas of interplanetary space-craft between
Earth-orbit and Mars-orbit, combined with the
reorientation of space-exploration to operations based
upon this Earth-Mars link. And, so on.

In conclusion, three additional points are to be
summarized. First, there is virtually no instance of any
observatories or probes sent into solar space, which did
not provoke the discovery of at least one
crucial-experimental quality of anomaly. The universe is
heavily populated with astrophysical anomalies which we
know to exist, but want the means to examine in a more
efficient way. On this basis, alone, the number of new
fundamental discoveries awaiting mankind from even the
preliminary next steps toward Mars colonization is
awesomely large; these anomalies alone would assure us of
numerous major scientific breakthroughs in the practice of
science upon Earth. Second, no principle of nature is
proven, until it is demonstrated experimentally in respect
to all three domains of astrophysics, microphysics, and
macrophysics, and in respect to the characteristics of
both non-living and living processes. From the remotest
beginnings of scientific knowledge, in the ancient
construction of solar astronomical calendars, long before
riparian silt deposits produced lower Mesopotamia,
astrophysics has been the origin of man's mastery of the
principles of scientific knowledge. Without astrophysics,
microphysics could not have been developed, nor a rational
macrophysics rendered possible. It remains the same today.

Man yearns upward, toward the exploration of space, for
one overriding purpose: the fuller development of mankind
on Earth.

Notes

1. In April 1976, Chase Econometrics, a consulting
firm
associated with Chase Bank, released a study which
estimated that for every $1 spent in the U.S. space
program, $14 was returned to the economy in new jobs, new
factories, and increased productivity from new
technologies. The study also found that dollars spent by
NASA were four times as effective in boosting the economy
compared to other R&D spending, and that the effects in
the economy of technology that had been developed by NASA
were visible within two years of application.

There is no other legal activity that can
claim that rate of return on investment.

While no listing of individual technology developments
could add up to the economic impact of the mission to land
men on the Moon, a survey does present examples of how
such investments transform economic activity for the
economy as a whole.

Agriculture: Observing the Earth from space
has given farmers a tool with which to evaluate the health
of crops, by determining infestation of pests, water
stress, efficiency of fertilizers, and other factors.
Threats to crops can be determined months before they
would be visible from the ground, and action taken in time
to avoid large-scale loss of food. Future applications of
space technology in agriculture will include the use of
automated and robotic systems being developed to grow food
in Earth orbit and on other planets.

Medicine and health: Medical technologies that
have benefitted from, or depended upon, NASA-funded
research and development include fluid-flow studies for
the artificial heart, miniaturized implantable insulin
delivery systems for diabetics, remote monitoring of vital
signs in intensive care units, rechargeable cardiac
pacemakers, astronaut "cool suit" treatment for multiple
sclerosis patients, implantable heart defibrillators,
diagnostic tools and technologies, and thousands of other
capabilities that have saved lives, improved the
productivity of victims of many ailments, and helped
prevent disease.

Energy: Many ideas for quantitative and
qualitative improvements in energy technologies were
initiated to enable the production of electricity under
the constraints imposed by space flight and the space
environment. They were under development to enable the
colonization of the Moon, and travel to and development of
Mars. Quantitative improvements included the development
of compact, high-temperature nuclear fuel arrays for
second-generation nuclear fission power plants.
Qualitative breakthroughs centered around direct
conversion techniques, such as applications of
magnetohydrodynamics, and new energy production methods,
notably, nuclear fusion.

Manufacturing: Industrial processes of every
type have been pushed ahead through the use of new
materials, computer control, non-destructive testing
techniques, quality control methods, and thousands of
individual innovations that were required in order to
manufacture spacecraft that could withstand the space
environment, and support both men and machines. Nastran, a
computer software package, was developed at the NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center during 1965-70, to analyze the
behavior of elastic structures. In 1970, it was released
for public use, and it was employed in aircraft and
automobile manufacture, bridge construction, and
power-plant modeling studies.

Transportation: The most significant increase
in productivity in traditional transport systems, such as
rail, since World War II, came from the application of
computers. A dispatching and control system, originally
developed by TRW for the Apollo guidance system, was
adapted for ground transport, and used in the rail
industry. Highly innovative transport technologies, from
magnetically levitated vehicles to sub-orbital
electromagnetic mass drivers, have benefitted from various
space technologies, and will be deployed on a large scale
on the Moon and Mars.

Scientists and engineers: During the 1960s,
NASA provided the resources for thousands of college- and
graduate-level students to pursue studies in science and
engineering. Grants went to educational institutions to
upgrade facilities, to faculty to support their research,
and to students to encourage them to study the sciences.
The peak year for NASA funding was 1965. The peak year for
doctorates granted in the physical sciences (approximately
4,500) and in engineering (approximately 3,500), was in
1971, not because NASA paid for all of these degrees, but
because there was great interest in joining in the space
enterprise. At the start of the space program in 1960, the
United States was graduating fewer than 2,000 Ph.D.s in
the physical sciences. The number increased as NASA
funding increased, and then declined, as NASA funding
declined, with about a five-year lag time.
(back to text)

2. The first of these agreements was negotiated
with Prime
Minister Shelburne (William Fitzmaurice Petty), during
1783. Initially, that agreement was repudiated by
Shelburne's successors, but realities obliged them to
affirm it in fact in the proceedings of the 1783 Treaty of
Paris. The adoption of the "free trade" policies of the
British East India Company, the interest which Shelburne
represented, was the condition of peace imposed upon both
France and the United States in the negotiation of these
treaties.
(back to text)

3. On the subject of the common purpose of the two
American tory oligarchies, the New England abolitionists
and the Confederacy's slave-masters, see Anton Chaitkin,
Treason in America 2nd edition (New York: New
Benjamin Franklin House, 1985); H. Graham Lowry, How
The Nation Was Won Vol. I (Wash., D.C.: Executive
Intelligence Review, 1987); and, the work which influenced
President Abraham Lincoln, Henry C. Carey, The Slave
Trade, Domestic & Foreign Reprint of 1858 edition
(New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1967).
(back to text)

5. It should be stressed, that at the beginning of
the
Nineteenth Century, the average citizen of the United
States had more than twice the literacy rate of the
average subject in the British Isles, was approximately
twice as productive, and had approximately double the
standard of living. This advantage was not the "bounty of
nature," but the fruit of combined educational policies
and dedication to scientific and technological progress,
beginning with the Seventeenth Century Massachusetts Bay
Colony.
(back to text)

6. The study of this development in modern warfare
may be
begun with reference to the relevant inventions of
Leonardo da Vinci and the writings on warfare by
Leonardo's ally Niccolo Macchiavelli.
(back to text)

8. The direction of the French Jacobins was
supplied from
London by the Jeremy Bentham who had assumed direction of
the British foreign intelligence service under Lord
Shelburne. For example, the French Danton and the Swiss
lunatic Marat, were both trained personally by Bentham, in
London, and sent to France to take over leadership of the
Jacobin Terror. The relevant point, in this text location,
is that the assigned function of the Jacobins was not to
lead France, but to arrange its destruction. Carnot was
given leadership of the military, not to secure its
success, but to assume the blame for a defeat which was
presumed to be inevitable at that time.
(back to text)

10. During late 1982, until after March 23, 1983,
Lt.-Gen.
(ret.) Graham was a vigorous opponent of the policy which
became the SDI. Even after he came around to professing
support for the SDI by name, he insisted upon stressing
"off-the-shelf" and related "kinetic energy" systems,
deprecating "new physical principles," as he had during
his earlier attacks upon me and Dr. Edward Teller.
(back to text)

11. The portion of this which is most readily
measured, is
shown by determining the increase in employment required
to bring the output of each agricultural sector or
industry up to the level of output needed to supply the
same market-basket of goods, per household, which was
average during the second half of the 1960s. In addition,
we must consider the large amount of net disinvestment
which has occurred in basic economic infrastructure and in
productive and other physical capital goods of farms,
industries, municipalities, and households, amounts which
are not reflected in the deductions made by the Federal
Reserve and government agencies, to arrive at estimated
national Value Added. For these and additional reasons,
the official estimates of National Product and National
Income are essentially fraudulent, wildly overestimated.
(back to text)

13. Determine the meridian by obvious stellar
observations. Place a series of sundials at intervals
along that meridian, in a south to north direction. The
measurement of the change in noon-time angle of the
sunlight's shadow, leads to estimates of the curvature of
the Earth's surface, and hence the size of the Earth. By
including the case of singularities, we are able to state
that some kind of measurement is always available for
recognizing a valid discovery of physical principle.
(back to text)

14. i.e., non-living, living, cognitive processes,
each
and all examined on the scales of microphysics,
astrophysics, and marcophysics.
(back to text)

15. The developed proposals for carrying out Eugen
Sänger's design envisaged the pick-a-backing of a rocket
plane upon the back of an approximately B-747-sized
scramjet of between Mach 6 and Mach 8 capability. Since
the scramjet would scavenge the heavier portion of its
fuel--oxygen--from the air through which it travelled, the
ratio of fuel consumption to net payload of the paired
scram and rocketplane could be on the order of ten times as
efficient as rocket ascent alone. This factor of cost is
one of the prime barriers to reasonable economy and
security in operations into nearby space.